winterknight

Yup. Thanks for the link.

I'm not sure I understand. That depends on the meaning of "you," (or "I") of course. That's where the ambiguity lies. If by "your" you mean the "you" of waking consciousness, then no. But there is a deeper "you" than that.

Any state comes and goes, or requires training. If you consider disidentified witnessing a state, then yes, it requires strenuous effort and continuous practice. Enlightenment is to realize that the states themselves are not who you are. The very thought "this is just a state" is itself the problem. That thought has to go. That said, from the seeker's standpoint, yes, certainly, it seems to require training and effort to discard that thought!

You might say that. In vedanta they call it the "burnt rope ego." The ego appears, but it is rendered ineffectual.

If we're talking absolute truth, yes.

In reality there are no states of perception, no body, no beginning and end, no memory. Investigate using RM's self-inquiry and you finally realize this is so. It does know itself in sleep. The problem is that the only consciousness that you understand is waking and/or dreaming consciousness, so it's going to be very hard for you to comprehend how that could be the case. The consciousness that you know and can conceive of is consciousness with a subject and an object -- "I know that." But the deeper consciousness is beyond that duality. Again, either you have to actually practice self-inquiry and see for yourself what that means (that's the only real way), or if you want we can have an extended discussion about the intellectual framework in which this could be true. The one who experiences sensations and needs is a false idea. But if, for the sake of discussion, we admit him, then yes, but in a much weakened way. Sure, more or less.

Well, almost. Even the idea of a limitation is itself, in the end, untrue. There is no limitation and no illusion. Seekers have to act as if there is, because that is their experience, but in the end, the realization is that there was never any illusion, never any seeking, never any seeker, never any illusory I thought.

Well, God is love can mean different things. The only real love is the Self (which is nothing other than God). It is the abundance that requires nothing, that is full, that is peaceful. But if you're asking whether experiencing human love is experiencing God, yes, in a way. Human love can give a powerful experience of a quieting of the mind, an erasure of various egoic boundaries. So that can be a glimpse into your true nature. But only a glimpse. That's because human love comes and goes. What comes and goes is not your true nature. The real love is permanent, perfect, and unchanging.

It is not that I know it, but that it knows itself, and that fact becomes quite clear once you investigate. It is not located in a location so one cannot say "where" it is. The truth is you are experiencing this real consciousness right this very second. It is so blindingly obvious, so intimate, that you cannot recognize it. If you would get out of your own way it would become clear. But that almost always takes inquiry .

Well, you think you know Outer consciousness. "I know it," you would say, and "I do not know winterknight's consciousness," you say. You use that word "I" without understanding it. Find out this I and you will have the answers to your questions.

Well, the truth is that you will not find the real consciousness through intellectual discussion. But if you want an intellectual understanding... let's start with this question. Do you agree that matter cannot account for consciousness? Or do you think your brain generates consciousness, and that the universe is made of matter? Why not look for the "I" which knows these senses, the ones which you write "I experience"? Once you find that through RM's self-inquiry, you will have the answer to these questions as well.

Well, there are two possible responses to this. Either you can investigate through RM's self-inquiry and find out for yourself... or we can have an extended intellectual discussion about this, which is inferior, provisional knowledge, but sometimes it's necessary. What are you looking for? Yes, that sounds right to me.

Ok... and? Are you trying to get me to convince you otherwise? If you are seeking anyway, does it matter? Is this an obstacle to your seeking, this lack of understanding?

By transmission of Silence do you mean the idea that other minds can be awakened through the silent presence of one who is awakened? Ramana Maharshi was notorious for having that power. As far as my silent presence, I think I've seen a little of that effect, nowhere near the power of RM. I don't really know what that is. Part of me thinks it's akin to a kind of mystical power that some sages and not others have, but that it's not deeply related to awakening itself. Which makes sense in terms of the fact that awakening itself is not the final truth, but is a provisional concept.

It's not really about operating from a nondual orientation. It's about whether there is a sense that "I am the doer." If that sense is destroyed through deep enough inquiry, then there's no question of how to operate. No, admit, as in, admit for the sake of discussion something that might appear to be the case but really isn't.

Investigate the I using Ramana Maharshi's self-inquiry and you'll understand that all these questions arise out of a misconception. That's the ultimate truth. Otherwise, we could say: God is behind creation and this existence is his will, as are the fact that we are humans. "I" am not really enlightened except as a figure of speech (enlightenment is the destruction of the notion of any I that could be enlightened)... but if I am it too is by God's will. The process is as I have outlined it here and here. Yes, all beliefs are technically wrong, because words can't express the Truth. If it bothers you to say that you are conscious in your sleep, you can drop that idea. It doesn't much matter to awakening. Unless, of course you really need to understand the deep intellectual framework before you feel comfortable proceeding. In which case, yes, try to resolve that doubt. The one who would say "my mind-body" is also technically false, as is the idea of a mind-body itself . But if we admit him and the mind-body, then yes, that appears and interacts with other characters...

The one who thinks he interacts with "unawakened characters" is also himself a fictional character. He doesn't really actually decisions about anything.

Do: Obtain a quiet mind by aligning your actions with your desires through a process of discovery. Understand the intellectual framework of awakening, quench your doubts, practice self-inquiry intensely. Do not: expect to chase mystical powers, or expect that awakening is going to get you worldly success. More here and here. In all those forms. I am more both more and less open to outside beauty than before. More in the sense that the mind is quieter so that it can take in more. Less in the sense that the mind is inward-turned and already reveling the continuous beauty of the Self, so outside beauty is in a way shallow in comparison. If you want to die without dying, awakening is the best way. The true death that brings peace is not the killing of the body but the killing of the mind. Psychodynamic/psychoanalytic therapy (google "psychoanalytic institute <my city>" and ask for a referral... there are low-fee options if that's an issue). Expressive writing/drawing/creation where you express your emotions in accurate, original detail and really try to capture what they feel like. Ramana Maharshi's self-inquiry -- look into who wants to be forgiven. I can't say I fully know the answers to these questions. I can only give you the roughly Hindu viewpoint on these. Memories are impressions of prior thoughts, feelings, and actions that are written into the subtle psychic body (of which the physical body is only a manifestation), and which influence current actions, thoughts, and feelings. Memories are, broadly, a kind of thought. Humans are a particular kind of living entity with certain qualities. They are different from animals because they have more understanding, more social capacity, and more ability to grasp philosophical and cultural matters. Perhaps. I will keep it in mind. Thanks for the suggestion.

Dreams have no one true meaning, though psychodynamic/psychoanalytic therapy can investigate some of the unconscious meanings of them -- which are certain emotions that you are not fully aware that you are feeling, and certain developments in your unconscious. I don't know much about lucid dreams.

Purification is largely a process of becoming honest about what you want and pursuing it. Psychodynamic/psychoanalytic therapy, expressive writing trying to describe in great specificity and original, accurate detail my emotions, and a lot of simply learning about the world and trying to comprehend myself... a lot of trying to get what I wanted and failing, and re-evaluating... all that is part of that purification & desire discovery process. Those are the ways of releasing trauma, neurosis, tension, etc. Well, that, and of course self-inquiry. And if you want certain other controls can be important: eating healthy, sleeping right, etc. But those will come naturally if you become honest about your desire. The greatest hiccup was feeling a lack of motivation. Only much later did I realize that this very lack of motivation was a giant pointer to the Self. But i had to go through all the things I mentioned above to understand that.

That I which seems to be steering those thoughts -- who is aware of that I doing that steering? "I am," right? That's the I you're trying to find. Yeah, I might pass on the second question Everything RM says has to be taken in context. First of all, RM doesn't really believe in things. So only if you have things is there a question of whether they are predetermined. Then, once you have things, you can either call them predetermined by laws of cause and effect or you can call them God's will. God is free, however. God's will cannot be called predetermined, because predetermination implies that God's will is conditioned by time and cause and effect, and it is not -- God's will determines those things. RM mentions God's will a lot too. I prefer the idea of God's will to predetermination. So choose whichever paradigm you want; both are false within the larger truth that there are no things. Sure, stories are fun, agreed. But let's not anthropomorphize Self. Self doesn't want or need anything. No. Those are boundary-blurrings that are characteristic of either psychedelic effects or brain abnormalities. These can happen in meditative glimpses for some people... well, intensified sensory experience, not so much fractal imagery I think. But maybe. These are not, however, the essence of spiritual self-realization.

Yes, can you elaborate? Look deeply and you will find there is no Ero or maze, situation, or binding conditioning.

Sure. Also here.

Yes, it is the feeling like an I that is the key issue. The mere intellectual understanding that "there are only thoughts of an I" is not enough. As long as there is that feeling of an I, that feeling has to be searched for using Ramana Maharshi's self-inquiry method.

Yes, I think you said it right: "something may have clicked together." There's definitely some truth to what you say. But actually the "false I" is deeper than just a train of me thoughts. It is a whole way of looking at the world. That perspective informs your beliefs, other thoughts, and actions too. To get at that deep underlying structure, you have to hunt the feeling of the I. Because you say "I observe" the thoughts. Who is that I? Find out.